Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

__________________Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

My point is that even if person A says it's not a currency and it's terrible, and person B says it's the worst currency doesn't mean A's argument is inconsistent.

Of course it is! It makes no sense to compare bitcoin to a currency if it isn't a currency (and this thread has had many a passionate argument about this) so, let's suddenly start calling it a currency.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Of course it is! It makes no sense to compare bitcoin to a currency if it isn't a currency (and this thread has had many a passionate argument about this) so, let's suddenly start calling it a currency.

You do realise that you are saying that one person's argument is invalid because of another person's argument, which you also disagree with, right ?

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

You do realise that you are saying that one person's argument is invalid because of another person's argument, which you also disagree with, right ?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no question that bitcoin had a bad year pricewise and even buyers of the Russian Rouble would have fared better (although the Rouble has never enjoyed the spectacular gains of bitcoin the year before).

I just find it ironic that bitcoin opponents who argue themselves blue in the face that "BITCOIN IS NOT A CURRENCY!!!!" suddenly describe it as a currency because it suits their agenda.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

I just find it ironic that bitcoin opponents who argue themselves blue in the face that "BITCOIN IS NOT A CURRENCY!!!!" suddenly describe it as a currency because it suits their agenda.

Who did that?

__________________Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

I have already explained it to you, but I'll try again: someone on the internet says that BTC is the worst currency. That doesn't mean that someone else, who says it's not a currency, is wrong. It sure doesn't mean that they are being inconsistent, since they are not the same person.

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

I have already explained it to you, but I'll try again: someone on the internet says that BTC is the worst currency. That doesn't mean that someone else, who says it's not a currency, is wrong. It sure doesn't mean that they are being inconsistent, since they are not the same person.

The irony is that someone who says that bitcoin is not a currency is quoting somebody who says that bitcoin is a currency (albeit the "worst" one).

I know that remirol has already implied that he always believed that bitcoin is a currency but you can be sure that jhunter1163 has never argued that bitcoin is a currency.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

The irony is that someone who says that bitcoin is not a currency is quoting somebody who says that bitcoin is a currency (albeit the "worst" one).

Not "quoting" -- "is linking to an article which says".

I don't see the problem here. I don't consider it a currency; I consider it a commodity. The article-writer chose to call it a currency. I don't agree with his terminology, but he's definitely right that if you measure it as a currency, it was a big pile of **** over 2014.

All you have to do is read the words and respond to those, instead of the ones you hear inside your mind.

__________________Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

And yet you both "linked" to articles that called it a "currency". Even if you think you can use any word that you find convenient, I still say,
I don't know which words you imagine I am responding to but I am only responding to the ones I saw in the articles.

It's just English. Try it sometime.

__________________Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.

Posts: 24,899

This really isn't that difficult, psionl0. The fact that Remirol and I linked to articles which called BTC a "currency" does not mean that either he or I think of it as such. If the writers of the articles believe that it is, bully for them; it in no way affects my opinion and I think I can speak for Remirol in saying that it in no way affects his opinion.

This really isn't that difficult, psionl0. The fact that Remirol and I linked to articles which called BTC a "currency" does not mean that either he or I think of it as such. If the writers of the articles believe that it is, bully for them; it in no way affects my opinion and I think I can speak for Remirol in saying that it in no way affects his opinion.

So neither of you believe it's a currency but you post an article that calls it a currency and compares how it did over the year to other currencies.

That article either contradicts your view of what bitcoin is, or it's total junk for comparing a non currency to currencies.

As you have already said you don't consider it a currency, why would you possibly post this? You accept the conclusion of an argument when you've stated you don't accept the premise.

That's illogical yo. I can't have it.

__________________Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.

Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.

Posts: 24,899

Originally Posted by The_Animus

So neither of you believe it's a currency but you post an article that calls it a currency and compares how it did over the year to other currencies.

That article either contradicts your view of what bitcoin is, or it's total junk for comparing a non currency to currencies.

As you have already said you don't consider it a currency, why would you possibly post this? You accept the conclusion of an argument when you've stated you don't accept the premise.

That's illogical yo. I can't have it.

I'm having a hard time even parsing this. There's not an "argument" here; the articles simply showed that BTC lost more than half of its value in 2014, which is a worse performance than any currency on earth. That's not arguable. That's a fact.

If it would make you feel better, I could compile a similar chart showing BTC's performance against, say, gold, platinum, copper and lean hogs (if BTC is deemed a commodity) or against the Dow, S&P, Russell 2000 and Nikkei (if it's deemed an investment). I'm sure the comparisons would reflect equally poorly on BTC.

So neither of you believe it's a currency but you post an article that calls it a currency and compares how it did over the year to other currencies.

So tell me, what about the article changes if you replace the word "currency" with the word "commodity" everywhere that it's used to reference Bitcoin?

Quote:

That's illogical yo. I can't have it.

Only for an extremely narrow definition of "logic".

I'm hardly surprised at this reaction, though -- the Bitbugs in this thread have all avoided discussing the content of the article in favor of shouting in faux-glee that someone bothered to call Bitcoin a currency. As noted earlier both in this thread and others: Unsinkable Rubber Duckie.

__________________Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

I'm hardly surprised at this reaction, though -- the Bitbugs in this thread have all avoided discussing the content of the article in favor of shouting in faux-glee that someone bothered to call Bitcoin a currency.

So bitcoin lost nearly 3/4 of its value in 2014 and the Russian Rouble didn't. What's so discussion-worthy about that? If the articles hadn't called bitcoin a currency there would be nothing to comment on.

Of course, I never expected that drawing attention to the currency aspect would result in all this hoo ha but - there you go.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

I'm hardly surprised at this reaction, though -- the Bitbugs in this thread have all avoided discussing the content of the article in favor of shouting in faux-glee that someone bothered to call Bitcoin a currency. As noted earlier both in this thread and others: Unsinkable Rubber Duckie.

I understand the article just fine and bitcoin did lose more value than any currency. The article is logically consistant, at least for anyone who believe bitcoin qualifies as a currency.

You and Jhunter accepting the article and its conclusion while simultaneously rejecting the premise is illogical. It's logic 101 and I'm sorry if you don't understand but I'm not wasting anymore time on this portion of the discussion.

__________________Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.

Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.

Posts: 24,899

Originally Posted by The_Animus

You and Jhunter accepting the article and its conclusion while simultaneously rejecting the premise is illogical. It's logic 101 and I'm sorry if you don't understand but I'm not wasting anymore time on this portion of the discussion.

There isn't a "premise". BTC was compared to currencies by the author of the article. I disagree with the author that BTC is a currency, at least in any useful sense, but that in no way invalidates the author's conclusion that BTC performed worse than any currency on earth last year because that conclusion is factual.